Virus and pranksters conquer a world divided by selfishness and fear

What common thread connects Zika virus, prank bomb threats to schools, and the outpouring of refugees from Syria? Only the certainty that any single country, acting alone, has very little hope of insulating itself from such problems.

"Globalisation" was the fashion term of the 1990s, but we've become so accustomed to living in an interconnected world, we sometimes forget the challenges it has created.

The Aedes Aegypti mosquito, responsible for the global spread of the Zika virus. Photo: Bloomberg

It's not that viruses or people fleeing conflict are new phenomena. But the speed and spread of problems has been amplified in modern times by advances in transport and communications technology. Rather than a single school being subject to a hoax, public buildings in Townsville, Edinburgh, Guam and Florida can be targeted simultaneously by apparent online trolls and cause serious disruption.

Yet we still tackle global problems with a mindset centred on nationalism – "what is the threat to us" – and with a clunky system of administration that focuses on a discrete territory, a sovereign government. We need to invest more in cross-border responses and global readiness.

But self interest can be best served by co-operation. This is the hallmark of human civilisation. We come together in communities to share the common burdens of food production, health and education services and the provision of security, yet for addressing global problems, the "us and them" distinction works against … well, us.

Advertisement

Global co-ordination exists, but it is between and through governments. The World Health Organisation is a creation of the United Nations, a body made up of countries, and relies on legal permission from governments to act.

Climate change is a good example where the system of independent sovereign states has struggled to find a collective solution. You could say the same about plugging the loopholes exploited by multinational companies to avoid paying tax, or in efforts to deal a crippling blow to transnational terrorism.

Parents take their children from a primary school in Melbourne's north, following an evacuation after a bomb threat. Photo: Wayne Taylor

Approaching problems through the prism of separate countries also limits how we think about solutions. As the risk of offending some well-meaning sensibilities, take the refugee crisis in Syria by way of example.

There was plenty agitation within the Australian community to help, with the assumption this meant offering refugees a home in this country. So the government agreed to resettle 12,000 Syrians, which Immigration Minister Peter Dutton estimates will cost $900 million – about $75,000 per head. Some, like business leader Tony Shepherd, who visited refugee camps last week, believe Australia's "fair share" would be settling 25,000 people.

But concerns over the security risk refugees from Syria might pose to the Australian community will delay their resettlement, possibly for months. Australia has made the costly decision to send its own immigration officials for vetting the refugees. So what about a different approach? What if instead of bringing people halfway across the world to settle in Australia, the $900 million was devoted to help improve the life of people huddled in refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq?

Given that 12,000 people – or even double that number – amounts to just a tiny proportion of the estimated three million Syrian refugees, spending nearly $1 billion in the camps would improve life for many more people rather than a lucky few, before the conflict eventually subsides and people can return home. The UN tried to raise $2.9 billon for help last year, but only half that amount was pledged.

The ideal might be to do both, settle people here and spend more there. But allocation of limited resources always involves a choice, and best outcomes, rather than a feel-good parochialism, should be the guide.

But the main reason global problems are so difficult is not the scale – it's the question of who has the authority to act. In a democracy, sovereignty is essential. If we cannot exert political control over ourselves, a community within a defined territory, then meaningful choice is forgone.

In spite of conspiracy theories, there is no dark and smoke-filled room from where the world is controlled. Self-determination requires a border, yet as soon as one is erected, someone wants to climb over.

How ironic that authorities believe the Zika virus was brought to Brazil during the FIFA World Cup last year, an event that brings countries of the world together to showcase competition in a sport. Yet now, the competition is to keep countries apart, to raise quarantine barriers in the hope of limiting the spread of the virus.

Humanity needs to find a better way to work together in the face of common threats.